HDR Audio

[danadam]

2 hours ago, JoeWhip said:

The the CD on dynamic range database has the three movements as 11 9 and 13. Sounds a lot more dynamic than that for me.

 

42 minutes ago, lucretius said:

No reason we couldn't have 16 or 17.

Keep in mind that the DR algorithm (at least the original one) takes into account only the loudest 20% of the track:

https://web.archive.org/web/20180917133436/http://www.dynamicrange.de/sites/default/files/Measuring DR ENv3.pdf

[Samuel T Cogley]

There's lots of classical music in digital that is "high dynamic range".

 

And the VAST majority of pop and rock music is made with little to no concern for dynamic range.

 

The thing is, "high dynamic range" music can only be consumed (wait for it) in an environment like an audiophile might set up in their home.  Even closed back headphones need a quiet environment for the user to consume that content.

 

We keep talking about the future of music consumption, and some of us are still stuck on how aging audiophiles consume it today.  The future is not with the 60 or 50 somethings.  It's not even with the 40 somethings.  And also, I want to take this opportunity to say that 97% or all music that I've listened to that is specifically created with audiophile consumption in mind sounds emotionless and dull.  Now imagine we have a new sub-genre of that that is EVEN MORE emotionless and dull.  I can't wait.  🙂

[AudioDoctor]

1 hour ago, lucretius said:

No reason we couldn't have 16 or 17.

 

I have a couple recordings with a DR of 21...

[The Computer Audiophile]

37 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

There's lots of classical music in digital that is "high dynamic range".

 

And the VAST majority of pop and rock music is made with little to no concern for dynamic range.

 

The thing is, "high dynamic range" music can only be consumed (wait for it) in an environment like an audiophile might set up in their home.  Even closed back headphones need a quiet environment for the user to consume that content.

 

We keep talking about the future of music consumption, and some of us are still stuck on how aging audiophiles consume it today.  The future is not with the 60 or 50 somethings.  It's not even with the 40 somethings.  And also, I want to take this opportunity to say that 97% or all music that I've listened to that is specifically created with audiophile consumption in mind sounds emotionless and dull.  Now imagine we have a new sub-genre of that that is EVEN MORE emotionless and dull.  I can't wait.  🙂

That’s a great argument for mediocrity. 
 

The movie industry seems OK with 4K HDR even though many watch movies on Mobile phones. 
 

The future argument. One that can’t be refuted. Kind of like saying you have a picture of you when you were younger. All pictures of you are when you were younger. 

[JoeWhip]

1 hour ago, lucretius said:

No reason we couldn't have 16 or 17.

Agreed, but the second movement sure sounds like 16 or 17. Goes from a whisper to a bang with space and dimensionality. Effortless sound.

[sphinxsix]

If all the money that has been put into MQA and its promotion had been put into promoting higher DR recordings, I'm pretty sure we already wouldn't have loudness war anymore. Good idea, like I said earlier I also was thinking about it some time ago, the only problem is as @Samuel T Cogley already noticed - the eventual group of  consumers interested in it is really very small, probably much too small to make anyone in the recording industry interested in the whole thing, hence what possibly awaits us soon is a standard DR of 2-3 in case of pop music and rock... 

[The Computer Audiophile]

26 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

If all the money that has been put into MQA and its promotion had been put into promoting higher DR recordings, I'm pretty sure we already wouldn't have loudness war anymore. Good idea, like I said earlier I also was thinking about it some time ago, the only problem is as @Samuel T Cogley already noticed - the eventual group of  consumers interested in it is really very small, probably much too small to make anyone in the recording industry interested in the whole thing, hence what possibly awaits us soon is a standard DR of 2-3 in case of pop music and rock... 

nobody wants MQA and Tidal has every recording in MQA. 
 

Movies have done this and I’d say the target audience is similar. 

[sphinxsix]

12 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Movies have done this and I’d say the target audience is similar. 

No Chris, it's a different situation with movies, in their case the higher dynamic range was simply successfully introduced (although it's not as catchy as the number of K's before 'HD'!). In case of music the damage to the natural, high DR has in general already been done, it would be about undoing it.

BTW - loudness war, MQA.. is there some other field of technology in which humanity moves backwards instead of moving forward except from the music industry.?

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

No Chris, it's a different situation with movies, in their case the higher dynamic range was simply successfully introduced (although it's not as catchy as the number of K's before 'HD'!). In case of music the damage to the natural, high DR has in general already been done, it would be about undoing it.

BTW - loudness war, MQA.. is there some other field of technology in which humanity moves backwards instead of moving forward except from the music industry.?

I don’t follow you. Old movies without HDR have to be remastered as well. 

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

There's lots of classical music in digital that is "high dynamic range".

 

And the VAST majority of pop and rock music is made with little to no concern for dynamic range.

 

The thing is, "high dynamic range" music can only be consumed (wait for it) in an environment like an audiophile might set up in their home.  Even closed back headphones need a quiet environment for the user to consume that content.

 

We keep talking about the future of music consumption, and some of us are still stuck on how aging audiophiles consume it today.  The future is not with the 60 or 50 somethings.  It's not even with the 40 somethings.  And also, I want to take this opportunity to say that 97% or all music that I've listened to that is specifically created with audiophile consumption in mind sounds emotionless and dull.  Now imagine we have a new sub-genre of that that is EVEN MORE emotionless and dull.  I can't wait.  🙂

 

[Rexp]

Higher DR alone doesn't guarantee high quality audio files, so why bother. MQA came about cos there was a need to fix all the poor quality recordings out there, unfortunately once the damage has been done you can't fix it. There needs to be a new gold standard for studios that guarantees high qualty recordings. 

[AudioDoctor]

Actually, I think that HDR as it stands for things like computer monitors, and MQA, actually share a lot of common traits. There are a lot of cheap monitors that claim to have HDR capabilities, that do not and are only some weirdly sampled SDR to have an HDR effect. Sort of like MQA. Put one of those next to a true HDR monitor and there will be no doubt as to which is which.

 

A true HDR monitor, much like a true HDR audio file, would be great. As we already know because we have recordings with a wide dynamic range that were not mangled in mastering. If there is no master left of an old recording, then there is nothing that could be done to restore it, obviously. With the master available, or new recordings, it could really be great. Much like having a real HDR VESA certified monitor instead of a fake HDR monitor.

[The Computer Audiophile]

23 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Higher DR alone doesn't guarantee high quality audio files, so why bother. MQA came about cos there was a need to fix all the poor quality recordings out there, unfortunately once the damage has been done you can't fix it. There needs to be a new gold standard for studios that guarantees high qualty recordings. 

Nothing alone guarantees anything, so we should do nothing? 4K, HDR etc… aren’t guarantees, so why bother?

 

I say it’s one indicator among others. 

[Anonamemouse]

6 hours ago, Rexp said:

Higher DR alone doesn't guarantee high quality audio files, so why bother. MQA came about cos there was a need to fix all the poor quality recordings out there, unfortunately once the damage has been done you can't fix it. There needs to be a new gold standard for studios that guarantees high qualty recordings. 

Uhm... No. MQA came because Meridian wanted to make a ton of money from people's gullibility, and it worked. MQA definitely does not fix anything. 

[Rexp]

34 minutes ago, Anonamemouse said:

Uhm... No. MQA came because Meridian wanted to make a ton of money from people's gullibility, and it worked. MQA definitely does not fix anything. 

So you like most digital audio files, lucky you...lol

[fas42]

Dynamic range is a subjective thing - IME, nearly all audio rigs can't be turned up to something approaching realistic sound levels - because the playback distortion is now too obvious, and makes the listening too unpleasant. It requires careful finessing in most cases to provide the replay with enough integrity to sustain realistic volumes while still sounding 'effortless' - hence, bland recordings which don't offend anyone - except those who want their music to have a bit of guts, 😁.

[firedog]

30 minutes ago, Rexp said:

So you like most digital audio files, lucky you...lol

Irrelevant. If the files are good they are good. If they aren't MQA fixes nothing.

It's a scam.

[Rexp]

11 minutes ago, firedog said:

Irrelevant. If the files are good they are good. If they aren't MQA fixes nothing.

It's a scam.

Which is what i said, are you feeling ok? 

[Norton]

Surely it’s not about DR in itself but rather an absence of compression so that the consumer experiences the natural DR of the piece and the performance?

 

I’d favour a labelling scheme so that the format, resolution and compression used at recording, mastering, transfer and distribution, as applicable, are made explicit to the consumer (like a more sophisticated version of that used for  CD back in the day)

 

 

[Iving]

 

Context:
A. My musical interest is provenance and posterity wrt historic recordings (probably mostly pre-1980) - I am barely interested in new recordings.
B. On MQA I don't have much to say since I don't/won't download or stream music from the internet. I loathe commercial (screen) environments when listening to music. I associate music with freedom from influence. Screen-wise, fb2k in b&w is the outer limit of my tolerance. I don't value music suggestions. The exception I will make happily is participation on the themed music threads here. I prefer ownership. There is always the risk of third party providers moving the goalposts. I hoover up CDs. I rip them in EAC. I tag flac idiosyncratically. I trade records and CDs online and, so, like you I have access to more music than I could ever listen to. My shallow understanding of MQA is that they want to re-engineer by coercion the availability of music to ordinary consumers. I don't understand why copyright owners would co-operate with such a scandal where no consumer interest can be established. On equipment, I know Linn have resisted, and I'm very glad about that. I will say this: I just watched the GoldenSound video on YT. Thank you for creating a strong counterpoint to what smells like unjustifiable commercial ambitions. I barely understood that I was walking among heroes here at AS.
C. In the final analysis I am - like anybody - an expert in my own experience only.
D. I have great music I cannot enjoy at all because the compression is just too overwhelming. With some recordings I can track down less compressed alternatives. Sometimes this isn't possible.

 

Remarks:

1. On the main point [HDR], I would settle for a trade-off of DR and convenience (acceptable perceived volume).
2. I am in favour of industry standards. But these are never established except through legal obligation (safety) or commercial self-interest.
3. To the extent that conventions could ever be established, I would favour a volume/dB/modest LUFS standard at mastering level rather than a DR criterion. My understanding is that most historic masters where DR is unadulterated could tolerate digital manipulation to this end without undue DR sacrifice and without creating loudness offence.
4. The intrepid @Samuel T Cogley is right. We boomers and similar with "golden ears" are too small a market. Ideally I'd like, on one retail product, for recordings to be duplicated: (i) original master with full DR no matter how quiet or "unsuitable for domestic consumption"; and, (ii) industry perceived volume/dB/modest LUFS standard. Don't see it happening. Unless I could see a healthy resale/investment potential (cf. vinyl), I'd buy only a limited number. I'd spend the "same" money on equipment first - you know - the kind that I kid myself makes a SQ difference ;-).

 

To the extent I would claim prescience, MQA may bite the dust for all I know - but attempts to moderate the availability of original masters based on commercial prerogatives will never stop. The genie has escaped the bottle with CDs. I don't think there will ever be another digital genie. Future generations (not so far off) will be looking back on - not at - the digital age.

[Anonamemouse]

3 hours ago, Rexp said:

So you like most digital audio files, lucky you...lol

I think you don't have a clue what you are talking about. 

[Rexp]

3 minutes ago, Anonamemouse said:

I think you don't have a clue what you are talking about. 

Ofcourse you think that. 

[lucretius]

4 hours ago, Anonamemouse said:

Uhm... No. MQA came because Meridian wanted to make a ton of money from people's gullibility, and it worked. MQA definitely does not fix anything. 

That, and the fact that they had these failed ideas left over from the Meridian days, which had yet to be exploited.

[Samuel T Cogley]

22 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

That’s a great argument for mediocrity. 
 

The movie industry seems OK with 4K HDR even though many watch movies on Mobile phones. 
 

The future argument. One that can’t be refuted. Kind of like saying you have a picture of you when you were younger. All pictures of you are when you were younger. 

 

HDR in movies is primarily a feature for explosion movie franchises like Star Wars.  An HDR-ified Die Hard (shot on film) shows an unnatural gleam of headlights in the beginning of the movie, but not much else.  And theater projector bulbs were never bright enough in the day to give movie goers an "HDR experience" from projected film.

 

Where HDR TVs really show their value is displaying HDR-enabled video games.

 

There just isn't a direct correlation to audio in any of this.  Explosion Movies are the polar opposite of artistic considerations given to "audiophile recordings", in spite of how mind numbingly boring I find almost all of them.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

18 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

HDR in movies is primarily a feature for explosion movie franchises like Star Wars.  An HDR-ified Die Hard (shot on film) shows an unnatural gleam of headlights in the beginning of the movie, but not much else.  And theater projector bulbs were never bright enough in the day to give movie goers an "HDR experience" from projected film.

 

Where HDR TVs really show their value is displaying HDR-enabled video games.

 

There just isn't a direct correlation to audio in any of this.  Explosion Movies are the polar opposite of artistic considerations given to "audiophile recordings", in spite of how mind numbingly boring I find almost all of them.

 

Interesting take. I don’t think it’s accurate though. 
 

CR is fairly unbiased - https://www.consumerreports.org/tvs/everything-you-need-to-know-about-4k-hdr-tvs/

 

Am I reading you right that you see no value in high dynamic range for audio?